blatantninja

blatantninja t1_j60z94s wrote

Of course neither of us are going to do it. Neither of us have the capital or expertise. That's irrelevant to the point of their existing other avenues.

> If it were a free market we would have 1$ insulin like india .

No we wouldn't. Insulin is cheaper (but it isn't $1) in India for several reasons, one of which is that the government purchases large amounts of it at bulk prices and gives it away for free. That's not even close to a free market.

>You don't have to explain economics to me , im a libertarian and quite well understand we dont live in a perfect capitalist society . But I think human health and life are more important than Lilly's profit margin .

Those two statements are a huge contradiction. No real libertarian would say that. A libertarian would say "let the market decide" and leave it at that.

Ultimately, your problem is that our healthcare system, top to bottom, is messed up, but a free market won't solve that.

1

blatantninja t1_j60eiph wrote

I'm Pre-diabetic. My father is diabetic. My grandmother was diabetic. I am VERY familiar with diabetes.

Yes the industry had been turned into a monoply withe their GMO yeast and processes. No one is stopping anyone from making the older versions though. Would it be enough for the whole population? No. Any increase in supply and alternatives would help the overall price situation though. Its basic economics.

1

blatantninja t1_j60aj13 wrote

Yes, it is derived from animals,that is correct. I'm sure this chemist wasn't exactly able to be efficient. I believe we still have plenty of slaughterhouse waste being produced everyday.

Prior to 1976 large amounts of insulin were produced in a manner to be efficient enough to be available to the general public

6

blatantninja t1_j608tyx wrote

You need GMO yeast for the method that Eli Lilly uses. The older processes, going all the way back to the 1926 discover, do not use GMO yeast. The problem is that these versions of insulin are not as effective as what Eli Lilly has developed.

9

blatantninja t1_j505epb wrote

I agree on the second part but not the first. There has to be a gatekeeper if you want healthcare that's affordable. Doctors don't want to be it (understandably) and patients will abuse the hell out of it. If a patient has met their deductible/out of pocket they don't even blink an eye if a treat is $100 or $1000000. That's a big part of our cost over overruns.

In a perfect world, sure cost shouldn't determine care, but unfortunately it's something that has to be considered in the real world. If it's not the doctors and if the patients won't do it themselves, that leaves either insurance or the government.

1

blatantninja t1_j4xzmam wrote

No, I just want reasonability in the process so I'm not paying ridiculous premiums so people can throw hundreds of thousands of dollars at a losing cause just because of some misguided belief that everyone moment of life is worth fighting for.

−7

blatantninja t1_j4xza6d wrote

We already let them decide what care they cover within certain regulations.

And if they are futile it won't matter, the hospital won't be collecting anything

2

blatantninja t1_j4v49uq wrote

If you want to waste your own money on that stuff fine, but it shouldn't be covered by insurance.

Part of that noise though DOES come from doctors. When my mother died from endometrial cancer, she had just begun a third chemo regiment that she reacted extremely badly to. She choose to just stop all treatment and wait for the end. Her hematologist/oncologist was practically begging her to try a slightly different treatment and not give up. My father had to basically escort him from the hospital room and instruct staff that he was no longer her caregiver and he was not to order treatment.

And we need physician assisted suicide. A family member recently died from COPD. She basically slowly suffocated to death over several months. Fortunately, I wasn't there to witness it but I got a lot of details about the oxygen deprivation panics,her wasting away from not eating, etc. It's one of the worst things I've ever heard. I don't know that she would have gone out on her own terms but she should have had the option to do it in a dignified and peaceful way.

168

blatantninja t1_iu05g30 wrote

It's important for pets to see their owners and other pets in the house after they die for this situation. They are emotional beings as well. I remember when my first dog died, before we buried him our other dog came up, sniffed at him a few times then walked off. He still mourned, for weeks he would just lay on top of the grave, but he wasn't left wondering what had happened to his buddy.

4